[Pnp-wg] Jump starting the process.

[Steve Greenfield]

This is a very strange response. I specifically asked that the "everyone
voted for it" excuse not be used, and I explained why it should not be used.
I even asked that anyone who was heavily vested in the previous system not
overreact. So the first thing I see is a freak-out by the self-described
"main architect of the formula." Oh, well.

What is most fascinating to me is that you did not address a single one of
my observations. How can we progress in such an atmosphere? Your response is
long on spite and devoid of content.

To be blunt, that was then and this is now. Democracy allows us to vote to
reject representatives that did not act in accordance with the membership's
preferences, and that is what we in New York did. There is no use in
reminding me that my former CC reps voted for the old system. Those CC reps
have been replaced. That's democracy in action, and I've been asked by my
state to help create an entirely new system.

I did not vote for the old system, and I certainly would not have voted for
that system. I was not on the CC then, but I am now. I was not on our State
Committee then, but I am now. Last year I was just the typical Green on the
street, no title, no self-important speaking for the minions. The New York
State Committee was completely reconstituted in September of 2004, after the
convention. So was our set of delegates to the CC. Anything the old State
Committee and CC reps supported is not supported is overwhelmingly rejected
by the State Committee as it exists now.

In other words, we don't like the old formula, and we did something about
it. As the saying goes, this is what democracy looks like.

I'm pretty sure a lot of locals and the state organization in California
have revised their viewpoint regarding those rules as well.

As far as your complaint that nobody stepped up to help out last year, maybe
so, but this committee represents the "stepping up" to fix it for next time.
We have official GPUS status. Let us do what we came to do.

> So everyones bitching about the formula are falling on deaf ears here.

If you really feel this way, you should recuse yourself from this committee
immediately. It is our job to "bitch" about the formula. If we don't analyze
what was wrong and why it was wrong, we can't recommend improvements. Anyone
who describes themselves as having "deaf ears" has no business being on this
committee.

This committee will accomplish nothing if we start our standing with one
foot in the past and the other on a banana peel.

I add one more citation to my earlier report: http://www.gp.org/, the home
page of GPUS. If you look over in the upper right hand corner, you'll see
our pompous new party slogan, "This is what Democracy looks like." Perhaps
we should subject that line to consumer protection agencies under
truth-in-advertising laws. If we don't get some democracy of our own, we
have none to sell to others.

Steve Greenfield
New York
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Dibloc@aol.com>
To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Jump starting the process.


> http://green.gpus.org/vote/voteresults.php?proposalId=55
>
> I asked numerous times for comment on the formula and offered to send it
to anyone who asked. I got two comments from the CC. If you did not see the
formula before it was adopted, you should complain to your CC delegates. If
you look at the adoption date of the resolution, there was 6 months from the
time it was adopted till the convention. It could have been altered during
that six months.
>
> Seems that the people bitching about the formula most are from states that
voted UNANIMOUSLY for it.
>
> Was the formula perfect? Not by any means. I asked many, many times for
help and comment but no one steped up to the plate to help.
>
> You wanna know how I came about as the main architect of the formula? No
one else was doing it. The Accreditation Committee offered to take on the
responsibility because we were less than a year from the convention and no
one else was doing it. There were three of us at the beginning of the
process with others giving us insight on how it was done in 2000. The other
two members of the ad-hoc committee dropped off, so the only person left was
me.
>
> So everyones bitching about the formula are falling on deaf ears here. If
you didn't like the formula, you should have done something about it.
>
> What should we learn from this? The formula should be done earlier and by
more people.
>
> Gray Newman
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>